(January 10, 2014 at 10:26 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: Which interpretation (if any) of Quantum Mechanics do you find most appealing and convincing?
The most convincing? None of them are convincing to me. So in this 'convincing' context, I don't want to pick any.
I won't say 'shut-up and calculate' either, at least literally, because I'm interested in a discussion about this (hence I won't say 'shut-up') and I'm less interested in the mathematical formulation (hence I won't say 'calculate').
The most appealing? To me, it's von Neumann interpretation. The reason is because I'm always very fascinated about consciousness phenomena. To me, it's the biggest mystery of all. In my opinion, von Neumann interpretation is the closest thing we have so far that bring consciousness to physics. Unfortunately and ironically, it's one of the least convincing interpretation.
(January 10, 2014 at 10:26 pm)MindForgedManacle Wrote: My own position would have to be that I have sympathies for both the Many-worlds interpretation and "shut-up and calculate" crowd.
Why do you sympathies with Many-worlds interpretation?
Do you believe that there exist other worlds beside the one we live in?
(January 10, 2014 at 11:39 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I like the "We are all connected" interpretation.
In my opinion, the 'we are all connected' idea is not a QM interpretation.
It's a consequence of the big bang theory and quantum entanglement.
The big bang theory is certainly not a QM interpretation.
Quantum entanglement is also not a QM interpretation. It's a fundamental feature of QM.
(January 11, 2014 at 12:35 am)cato123 Wrote: My pet peeve regarding quantum discussions are those that extend quantum phenomenon at distances greater than a Planck length; these can easily be dismissed. Yes there are 'emergent' systems that display quantum influence greater than a Planck length (superfluidity, electron orbit stabilization, etc.), but Deepak Chopra has an open invitation to suck me off every time he says quantum.
All quantum phenomenons that are ever observed happen at a distance greater than a Planck length.
The Planck length is actually much smaller than any of our current instrument can measure.
More than that, many physicists believe that we can never measure anything with size less than the Planck length regardless of technology advances.
I think your "pet peeve" is about quantum mysticism, not about quantum phenomenon at distances greater than a Planck length.
(January 10, 2014 at 11:30 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Honestly, I don't feel that I have enough of a grasp on QM to have an educated opinion on the matter.
I'm also not an expert in QM.
However, because I'm interested in this subject, it won't stop me to share my opinions.
If my opinions turn out to be false, then I will have to abandon them and adopt new ones.
It's part of a learning process.
